Russia Agrees To Shut Down AllOfMP3.com

Pro-SEO writes, "An official document (PDF), dated November 19, summarizes an agreement between the U.S. and Russia in which Russia has agreed to close down AllofMP3.com, and any sites that 'permit illegal distribution of music and other copyright works.' The agreement is posted to the Web site for the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative. It summarizes the joint efforts of the two countries to fight content piracy, an issue in which Russia and Eastern Europe figure prominently." From the document: "This agreement sets the stage for further progress on IPR issues in Russia through the next phase of multilateral negotiations, during which the United States and other WTO members will examine Russia's IPR regime."

Comments

Asshats

[seanadams.com]

And if the RIAA does not see a corresponding increase in their music sales, will they then realize that "stealing" is not the problem, but rather a lack of sanctioned paid music sites which offer the quality, convenience, unencumbered formats, and broad selection that piracy offers?

Re:Asshats

[pimpimpim]

Indeed, this is a disgrace! So they forced Russia to shut off basically a single website, and otherwise just don't let them enter WTO. What if they had refused, would the US have invaded them? Also notice that this was actually mainly the wish of the US, the rest of the WTO just following like sheep there I suppose.

I wonder how long this ass-licking of the US will go on. Decreasing value of the dollar, increase of the value of foreign currencies, and by now everyone except the UK is pissed of with how the US brings immense problems to the world, without having the slightest idea how to solve them. Such a democracy we have in Iraq now that the troops will be moved out there, or not? Maybe you can vote for a government, but they'll be blown to pieces by the end of the month.

In any case, I was hoping that of all government leaders at least Putin would have enough backbone to withstand these ridiculous demands of the RIAA^C^C^C^C US government. But maybe on the other hand they just don't give a damn out there in Russia, their citizens will find a way to get their cheap stuff anyway, and the foreign trade of allofmp3 probably wouldn't have gotten into the Russian state anyway, where there's a will, there's always a way to avoid tax. Then so be it, if the governments of the world are all too weak to protect their citizens from the claws of the RIAA (remember the police raiding of pirate bay in Sweden?), then maybe these governments and unfortunately their citizens deserve to be treated like shit.

Re:Asshats

[kentrel]

And if the RIAA does not see a corresponding increase in their music sales, will they then realize that "stealing" is not the problem, but rather a lack of sanctioned paid music sites which offer the quality, convenience, unencumbered formats, and broad selection that piracy offers?

And if they do see a corresponding increase in their music sales, will you then realise the opposite?

Re:Asshats

[seanadams.com]

And if they do see a corresponding increase in their music sales, will you then realise the opposite?

Yes, for I am not an asshat.

Re:Asshats

[Helix150]

no, why would they? they have been blissfully disconnected from reality for years, chances are they will be too busy declaring victory to notice any change in sales or lack thereof.

It's a sad fact of human nature- we naturally see things from our own POV and don't look at it from any other perspective. That's why the music industry sucks so much- they (the ones in charge) see things from their own POV. From their POV things are nice and cozy, they are ass raping the artists, and the consumers, and just about everybody else; and congress is on their side.
They don't think of it like this though, they see business as usual, and the internet threatens that.
For better or worse they (collectively) are a monopoly. People NEED music. And most people don't invest the energy to go looking for music they like- they absorb it via exposure, which comes from friends CDs, radio, etc. So most of the time, nobody with a clue can get big enough to actively change anything. As long as teens will buy ten million copies of "Grind That Ass Bitch" by 'D. Gangsta and da Thugz', they are all set.
Their only threats come from two sources- 1. that people will stop buying major label music (unlikely and if it happens they will just buy all the smaller labels), and 2. that the music scene as a whole will change into something they cannot control or profit from.
It's that which scares them- change. But the fact is people still like their music. So they react with the only weapon they have- their music. They increase their ownership of it to the point that artists are getting ripped off way worse than consumers, and then use this as a weapon, demanding that people stop 'pirating' and 'stealing' 'their music'.

Looking at the future- in 10-20 years none of this will matter. It's already cheap enough to record your own music at decent enough quality that anybody can do it, and there are a gazillion companies that will happily press CDs for a few hundred bucks. Suddenly the total cost of making a CD is down to under a grand and anybody can afford it.
The only things that the labels can add to this are sorting (only backing artists that don't suck), branding (creating a promotable brand for the artist) and marketing (pouring tons of $$ into getting ppl to buy the thing).
Currently we often see this applied as wholesale creation- label or producer will take somebody with *some* talent, give them a few catchy songs to sing, market them to death and reap the reward when ten million 14 year olds buy the album because the dude is good looking.

However many of these things can be done by other groups- websites and music store sites already provide ratings and let people discuss music to an extent that the separation may not be required. Promoting online is dirt cheap and Internet radio has already exposed a ton of new artists.

Where this leaves the concept of a record label is where it should be- helping an artist deal with the business end of music when they don't have to.

So I expect that over the next 10 or 20 years, this whole argument will become moot. Megacorp record labels will continue to produce trash but people will stop listening to it. Don't get me wrong, things will get worse before they get better. But as everybody gets more informed people will start to see what is actually going on and it will be routed around.
Satellite radio will help with this, because they cater to their listeners (who cancel their account if it sucks) not advertisers. Also, useful 3.5-4g wireless broadband will help with this... you will be able to listen to online radio in the car or from a cell phone, further opening up artist discovery.

And besides, there is (today) already a growing backlash against DRM and the labels lawsuits. I expect the MS Zune will move this along when everybody that bought music from walmart / napster / etc realizes they have to buy it AGAIN to make it work with the zune. This will educate a lot of people to what DRM actually is, and if they get pissed off enough to act then DRM will very shortly be a thing of the past.

Re:Asshats

[bersl2]

Five bucks^Wrubles says they cook the books.

Re:Asshats

[Ash Vince]

No, they will find someone else to blame instead.

Re:Asshats

[linuxci]

These sites are robbing the artists and companies of the revenue they are entitled to. Because they don't get this, they raise prices to cover what they lose...and so the spiral continues upward.
If you bothered to buy the music from real stores (online, or at a shop), then maybe we'd be seeing some cheaper prices for CD's etcIt's been said many times but I might as well repeat it back before most people had internet access then buying on CD, tape, etc was the only real option. Effectively at least one person in a group of friends had to buy the CD, but as CD often had more benefits than tape then people would often still buy their own.

So back then more people had to buy a CD if they wanted music but did the price ever go down? NO! What people forget is money doesn't magically appear, if someone has no money then them downloading 10,000 illegal tracks online doesn't mean any loss of revenue as they wouldn't be able to purchase the songs legit. Most people tend to be honest when they can and tend to support things that they like, so if the RIAA embraced a legal store on the AllOfMP3 model then it'd be popular as it would provide convenience. People are paying for AllOfMP3.com right now (when they could get it for free on P2P), a similarly priced legit store would make a fortune for the RIAA.

Re:Asshats

[estarriol]

and by now everyone except the UK is pissed of with how the US brings immense problems to the world, without having the slightest idea how to solve them.Speaking from and as part of the UK, I can assure you that the majority of the UK is extremely pissed off with US foreign policy, and the weakness of our own administrators who go along with it. This is most certainly not our finest hour.

Re:Asshats

[MostAwesomeDude]

Why would the RIAA, a cartel, lower prices?

Re:Asshats

[Darkman, Walkin Dude]

First off, at the end of the day AllofMP3 was not giving artists and production / media companies their required due, so what they were doing was immoral, if technically legal at the time. No matter how you cut it, these goods and services have a value set by the vendor; if the market doesn't want to pay the price demanded, the market can simply not purchase them. It doesn't give people laissez-faire to take other people's work without paying for it. Before I get jumped on by the million-boot slashdot hive mind, I am completely opposed to the RIAA and MPAA and thier ilk, and think they are dinosaurs that should be expunged from the bodies social and politic.

Secondly, the US has vast amounts of wealth, which few other groups have. This is the reason for the "asslicking". How long the US will continue to be comparatively wealthy is another question entirely. Once the greenback stops being the de facto currency of global trade, it will decrease in value sharply, and US spending power with it. The natural inheritor of that throne is the euro; not only is it based in a group of stable democracies with no expansionist ideals, the EU market is what, double or triple the size of the US. Also you have to factor in enrmous foreign debt and a looming housing price collapse. What I do strongly object to is the US tying IP laws to deals for trade with third world nations, thus denying these nations the very means by which the US became so powerful (ignoring IP laws).

Iraq is a nasty snarl up, but to be honest you can lay the blame for that at the feet of Winston Churchill when he drew the lines on the map that bundled a group of unrelated cultures into one single country - fairly typical English ignorance in their colonial matters, I have to say. The most recent debacle involving the US is not going to end well.

This is a bit rambling, but the upshot of my post is, if you don't like the price, don't buy it. Its not like theres a steep barrier to entry. Buy a guitar. If you want to get worldwide audiences with your music and maybe get rich, into bed with the *AA you climb. Or set up your own one.

Re:Asshats

[Antiocheian]

> Support the artists....not the pirates!

You can instead support a broader sharing culture by supporting pirates and not artists.

Re:Asshats

[Redlazer]

Honestly, i would buy the CD of every song i have downloaded in a heartbeat if i knew that it would actually lower the prices of CD's.

I actually had this conversation with my mother recently, and she agrees that 15 bucks for a CD is retarded. Part of the "high cost" is the staggering amount of profits publishing companies expect from each CD - not how much they are actually worth to the populace at large.

It all boils down to value - i cannot value any cd on the market at 15 Dollars. No way. Wether or not that is its ACTUAL COST is irrelevant - if it doesnt seem valuable to people for the price you have to pay, then people will find alternate methods.

A good example - i've been trying to find a copy of a game i fancy, but so far i can only find the demo. It's pretty good, but it costs 20 bucks to buy. Clearly some reasonable talent went into the game, but i doubt i will get much replay value out of it, as its essentially a beefed up version of Scorched Earth, so itll really be the same game over and over again, therefore killing its value. I would pay 5 or maybe 10 in a heartbeat, but not 20. So they lost a sale and now im looking for "under the table" means of getting it. Ironically, i've failed miserably, but thats my sob story.

Companies have started including easter eggs, video DVD's, and other goodies with CD's to increase their value, which is good, and works better than just staying "deal with it". Although many times, the extra content is lame, and when i get home and put it in my computer itll either install a rootkit, or itll be really lame.

Its not our job to bend to their rules. It is their job, as the provider of a service, to make us want it.

Obviously, they arent doing a good job.

-Red

Re:Asshats

[1u3hr]

First off, at the end of the day AllofMP3 was not giving artists and production / media companies their required due, so what they were doing was immoral

Allof MP3 offered to pay royalties. All anyone had to do was fill out a form. The **AAs refused to deal with them, so they could do exactly what they've done today: call them pirates and get the US govt to force them out of business.

Re:Asshats

[xtracto]

First off, at the end of the day AllofMP3 was not giving artists and production / media companies their required due, so what they were doing was immoral, if technically legal at the time.
Allof MP3 offered to pay royalties. All anyone had to do was fill out a form. The **AAs refused to deal with them,

The Russian Organization on Collective Management of Rights of Authors and Other Rightholders in Multimedia, Digital Networks & Visual Arts (ROMS) is the Russian equivalent to RIAA. Until September 1st 2006 the fact that Allofmp3 site payed the requird fees for the distribution of the intellectual property to this organization made the AllOfMp3 distribution legal. It did not made the "reception" of such intellectual property legal on your country but what they were doing was completely legal and moral in their country.

It is as simple as selling mariguana in the Netherlands. It is legal and moral to do it there, and in contrast it is illegal and immoral to sell it on the USA. It is legal to publish DIY methods for mariguana production while in other countries might not be the case.

Now, I do not know if *after* the amendment (see the link) the allofmp3 current practices became illegal, that would need to be tested in A RUSSIAN COURT. I hope it is tried there, and I hope Allofmp3 win. However, we will have to see that int he following months.

Hope this helps.

Re:Asshats

[Znork]

"these goods and services have a value set by the vendor;"

Oh, bull. The price is set with the assistance of coercive government monopoly powers; as such most of the price is entirely derived _from_ that particular legal construct, and has little to do with the inherent value of the good. And has nothing whatsoever to do with morality.

"if the market doesn't want to pay the price demanded, the market can simply not purchase them."

Yes, that's how monopolies work and why they're such a destructive force on the wealth of an economy.

In a competetive market, the market can simply purchase the good from another vendor. I dont see five brands of specific modern recordings for sale that often, yet I have no trouble finding five brands of spaghetti in the store.

"Its not like theres a steep barrier to entry."

Mmmhmm. Try duplicating hammers and selling them for a while, then try duplicating a number of CD's and selling them, and I'll betcha you'll notice the barrier to entry fairly soon.

But even ignoring that, and playing along with your train of thought, pick up that guitar and go compete with the payola radio and monopoly financed media blitzes, and you'll find that, oddly, the 'protection' of copyright appears mainly to be protecting the *AA from playing on a level field.

But you knew that already. So, really, take a good look and examine that barrier.

Re:Asshats

[1u3hr]

The *AAs have the right to refuse to deal with them, or any vendor they like. That doesn't give vendors the right to go ahead and sell their music anyway.

Under Russian law there is a compulsory licensing; i.e., a fixed rate mediated by a copyright bureau that collects from broadcasters and publishers and disburses payments. Something similar operates in many countries for radio broadcast rights, it's not a "communist" idea, just in case you were thinking that. Of course, if a rights owner and a publisher make their own contract, that will take precedence.

Re:Asshats

[pubjames]

and by now everyone except the UK is pissed of with how the US brings immense problems to the world

Just so you are aware, most people in the UK are very pissed off with the US (or more accurately, Bush and his cronies) as well.

Re:Asshats

[Darkman, Walkin Dude]

Yeah.. If they can't afford it why should we care? They are the worthless part of our society, they have no rights to make use of our culture!

I know I shouldn't be feeding trolls, but... by your reasoning, taken to an extreme level why shouldn't social welfare add a lexus purchasing allowance? The "culture" is available for free on the radio and in libraries, and mostly for free on TVs. And another very important point that people like you seem to miss is that by taking up guitars and learning music for themselves, people are creating and enriching their own culture, producing works never before seen or heard, which for my money is a very very good thing. Isn't that how rap and jazz got started?

Re:Asshats

[antonyb]

And your weak link is that, if they were operating legally with respect to the laws that governed them, whether or not the original vendors received their "required" due is irrelevant (it strikes me that, in their case, legally, that due wasn't required).

Maybe you consider they were acting immorally; they obviously didn't consider that a business imperative.

Maybe you consider the laws that govern them were at fault; again, that is not the fault of their business model.

ant.

Re:Asshats

[Znork]

"a similarly priced legit store would make a fortune for the RIAA."

Revenue for monopoly protected goods is maximized at a pricing point where a lot of consumers cannot afford the product. A similarly priced legit store may mean more sold tracks, but _less total revenue_ for each particular track. It might mean more money to smaller artists and composers, it might mean more diffrentiated music, it might benefit consumers, but it would not benefit the *AA, so you're not going to get that until the *AA are eradicated.

Re:Asshats

[kentrel]

Five bucks^Wrubles says they cook the books.

Prove it.

Re:Asshats

[Darkman, Walkin Dude]

The price is set with the assistance of coercive government monopoly powers; as such most of the price is entirely derived _from_ that particular legal construct, and has little to do with the inherent value of the good.

What coercive monopoly? And heres a news flash, nothing has much to do with the inherent value of the good. The prices are set to what the market will bear, no more no less. Same with housing, same with cornflakes. If music seems expensive to you, your element of the market can't bear it, so don't buy it.

Yes, that's how monopolies work and why they're such a destructive force on the wealth of an economy.

I don't see how it is possible to have a monopoly on something that almost anyone can replicate.

In a competetive market, the market can simply purchase the good from another vendor. I dont see five brands of specific modern recordings for sale that often

Ye gods its not spaghetti we're talking about here. There aren't five brands of recordings because the artist didn't sign five contracts. If artists don't like the contracts, they don't have to sign them.

Try duplicating hammers and selling them for a while, then try duplicating a number of CD's and selling them, and I'll betcha you'll notice the barrier to entry fairly soon.

Aha so now we get to the crux of your problem. Its not about the music, its about the distribution, media and advertising. Yes, there is a steep barrier to entry on that, but thats the price you pay if you want to reach large populations. Or it was before the advent of the internet.

you'll find that, oddly, the 'protection' of copyright appears mainly to be protecting the *AA from playing on a level field.

Only if you try to sing other people's songs. Savvy? Write your own. I don't see what's so hard to understand about this.

Re:Asshats

[Tom]

These sites are robbing the artists and companies of the revenue they are entitled to.

Without entering into the moral argument - don't forget that the artists get about $0.50 from your $19.95 CD sale. Google for Courtney Love's article about who the real pirates are, and you'll stop living in the dream world that CD sales make artists rich. They make record company CEOs rich and that's about it.

Re:Asshats

[1u3hr]

the orginal vendors were not receiving their required due

Because they refused to take it.

Re:Asshats

[cowbutt]

Google for Courtney Love's article about who the real pirates are, and you'll stop living in the dream world that CD sales make artists rich.

Or this one from Steve Vai.

Re:Asshats

[Christian Engstrom]

Once the greenback stops being the de facto currency of global trade, it will decrease in value sharply, and US spending power with it. The natural inheritor of that throne is the euro; not only is it based in a group of stable democracies with no expansionist ideals, the EU market is what, double or triple the size of the US.

The EU market isn't quite that big, but the argument you're making is valid anyway.

In the excellent CIA World Factbook, we find that the purchasing power partity GDP numbers for the US, EU and the world are:

US: 12.31 trillion
EU: 12.18 trillion
World: 60.63 trillion

In other words: EU and the US each have 20% of the world's economic power.

This is all fine and well, but the problem is that the US is behaving as if it was still 1945, when the US was the economic giant of the world, and nobody else came close.

Especially in IP matters, the US has pursued a very agressive course against most other countries in the world. So far the US has managed to get away with this strategy, but it hasn't made the US any new friends around the world.

Looking at the GDP numbers and thinking about how the percentages will shift in the future, it's not obvious that the attitude "do as we say, or else..." will work indefinitely. If you want to behave like a bully and dictate the terms for everybody else, you'd better be considerably stronger than everybody else if you want to get away with it. And the US ain't, to put it bluntly.

It is quite possible that the RIAA/MPAA dictated strong arm tactics of the US government may one day start to backfire. When it does, that could be start of some very interesting times.

Re:Asshats

[Alioth]

So the majority is so pissed off with US foreign policy and our own administrators that go along with it...we voted them in for another term?

Re:Asshats

[Fred_A]

How does that change anything? The *AAs have the right to refuse to deal with them, or any vendor they like. That doesn't give vendors the right to go ahead and sell their music anyway.

You mean in practice the *AAs have the right to veto and shutdown any reseller for any reason whatsoever ?

I'll concede that they have the capacity, but the *right* ???

Re:Asshats

[Shawn is an Asshole]

If you don't sign the contract (which always screws the artist over) with the parasites, you don't get on the radio. Fucking Clear Channel. Indie labels get ignored.

Anything less than bankruptcy for RIAA members is too good for them.

NOFX put's it well in Dinosaurs Will Die:

Kick back watch it crumble
See the drowning, watch the fall
I feel just terrible about it
That's sarcasm, let it burn

I'm gonna make a toast when it falls apart
I'm gonna raise my glass above my heart
Then someone shouts "That's what they get!"

For all the years of hit and run
For all the piss broke bands on VH1
Where did all, their money go?
Don't we all know

Parasitic music industry
As it destroys itself
We'll show them how it's supposed to be

Music written from devotion
Not ambition, not for fame
Zero people are exploited
There are no tricks, up our sleeve

Gonna fight against the mass appeal
We're gonna kill the 7 record deal
Make records that have more than one good song
The dinosaurs will slowly die
And I do believe no one will cry
I'm just fucking glad I'm gonna be
There to watch the fall

Prehistoric music industry
Three feet in la brea tar
Extinction never felt so good

If you think anyone would feel badly
You are sadly, mistaken
The time has come for evolution
Fuck collusion, kill the five

Whatever happened to the handshake?
Whatever happened to deals no-one would break?
What happened to integrity?
It's still there it always was
For playing music just because
A million reasons why

(All) dinosaurs will die
(All) dinosaurs will die
(All) dinosaurs will die

Re:Asshats

[FST777]

Totally agreed.

This reasoning goes for the bunch of the flock: I download songs to try something out, or to "just have it" when it's moderately good, but not great. I spent a large deal of my money to buy CD's, since I really would like to see more of the same stuff around, thus willing to support the artists and the label. Besides, some CD's are a "must have". I take great pride in owning some of my collection, or in owning all records of one particular artist.

Simillary, my sister (who is too young to have large amounts of money available to buy legal content) downloads her content most of the time. But when she has some bucks to spent, she does. Recently she really, really wanted a copy of Pirates of the Carribean II, but she didn't have the money to buy it. She wanted to download it to watch the movie while she was saving her pennies to buy it once she could. Then some of her friends gave her a legal copy as a thank you for something. She was extremely happy with it, and proud that she could add it to her small (but legal) collection.

On the other hand, there are some out there who really don't give a damn. They download everything they can get their hands on, and sometimes resell it whenever they can (mostly DVD's) to those who don't value the content enough to buy it legally. Those are the once that can pose a real threat to the artists and the labels. But they form a very small portion of the downloaders. It's time that the RIAA realizes this.

Re:Asshats

[smallfries]

The RIAA doesn't have a contract for music distribution in Russia. AllOfMp3 does. In fact the RIAA has no recourse under Russian law whatsoever. So for a Russian vendor - yes it does give them the right to go ahead and sell their music anyway

Re:Asshats

[TapeCutter]

"They can do what they like with it"

And according to the Russian laws that AllOfMP3 diligently followed, so can anyone else who has possesion. So far AllOfMP3 have been operating as a legitimate business, regardless of what your opinion on the matter is.

Re:Asshats

[Darkman, Walkin Dude]

It's the problem that ROMS (the Russian version of the **AA) does not have a standing agreement with the RIAA and the MPAA. Allofmp3 paid the required royalty fees to ROMS, which then failed to pay **AA. So where is it Allofmp3's fault?

They took advantage of a dubious legal situation, to their own immense financial gain, using someone else's content.

Re:Asshats

[jez9999]

No, England didn't.

And the rest of the UK certainly hardly gave them a 'resounding' victory. Our electoral system did.

Re:Asshats

[denebian devil]

It doesn't give people laissez-faire to take other people's work without paying for it.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Re:Asshats

[1u3hr]

All that means is that Russian law was borked according to the owners of the copyright, and its their opinion that people listen to, not yours.

People who own copyright don't make laws. Not in my country, anyway. But you're right in one thing, the government listens to them. Nothing to do with morality or legality though.

Re:Asshats

[1u3hr]

Eh where in any of my posts did I say that there wasn't?

When you said they had "no right" to sell the music. Now youre talking about "feelings". And "using leverage" to put someone out of business doesn't strike me as terribly moral. But they're only foreigners, after all.

Re:Asshats

[dyefade]

I think parent was referring to the 2005 UK General Election. See the (then) leader of the opposition:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Howard

At that time, many in the UK saw Labour (Blair) as the only option, this to the point where Liberal (a third party in US terms) loyalists would vote for Blair just out of hatred for Howard's conservatives.

Re:Asshats

[iainl]

"The *AAs have the right to refuse to deal with them, or any vendor they like."

Under Russian law, they don't, because music is under a compulsory license. We don't need to Godwin the thread to solve this one, as it's merely a correction.

Personally, I happen to believe they should have the right, but not being Putin my opinion doesn't count for much.

Re:Asshats

[danpsmith]

Why would the RIAA, a cartel, lower prices?

Because unlike most cartels, they don't have a stranglehold on supply anymore. The music is out there, and despite all their threats and attempts at litigation, P2P will continue forever if there's not a better business model to thwart piracy. It is in their best interest to stop having such a fix on pricing and back down from the hardass stance a little bit, as fixing pricing and being a hardass isn't going to stop people.

Re:Asshats

[Knuckles]

how rap and jazz got started

Funny how you choose these two music styles: both were started using techniques that would be illegal today (well, they were at the time but people cared less). Both Jazz and Rap are full of adapted musical material produced by others, be it chord sequences, melodies, "standards", scratching or sampling.

Re:Asshats

[Knuckles]

Or this one by Steve Albini

Re:Asshats

[tehcyder]

I would pay 5 or maybe 10 in a heartbeat, but not 20. So they lost a sale and now im looking for "under the table" means of getting it.

I'm sorry, but there is no moral or logical justification for the argument that, because a non-essential item of goods is over-priced, you are entitled to steal it.

Re:Asshats

[Shaper_pmp]

"However, if you really want an idea of what Americans think of Bush Jr.'s presidency, you need look no further than the last election. Six months ago, only a handful of wishful thinkers thought that the Republicans might lose both the Senate and House."

Fair point... but it's too little, too late. When Bush is removed from power, or investigated and punished after leaving office, then the world will believe he wasn't acting in the names of most normal Americans.

Unfortunately, we all know he's going to sit out the rest of his term as a lame-duck president, nobody's going to impeach him and by the time he's out of power it'll all be "old news" that nobody wants to rake over again by investigating.

However, when someone has done quite as much as Bush and the Neocons have, supposedly in your names, mere apathetic inaction isn't enough. The American people have to either swiftly and pro-actively either make it clear that you disapprove of his actions, or be condemned to history as supporting him.

This is exactly why many people in the Middle East hate America so much - they either believe you[1] approve of everything your leaders do, or they realise you disagree but know you're too apathetic to actually oppose them.

I think I'd be pretty pissed off if my life was going to hell... and even though the American people disagreed they couldn't be bothered to oppose the guy doing it in their names.

[1] "You the people", or course, not you personally.

"OTOH, I don't see any evidence that the Dems have any clue as to what should be done instead. :("

That's the problem. The Neocons have romped across America (and the world) unopposed for six years, and the Democrats have been unable to do more than stand idly by, flapping their hands and going "Ooooh, deary me". Kind of links in with the whole "can't even be bothered to oppose him" part, above.

Re:Asshats

[shark72]

"Why would the RIAA, a cartel, lower prices?"

Because record companies are ultimately in competition with each other, as well as in competition with other sources of entertainment. There are hundreds of labels who are members of the RIAA, and thousands more which are not.

That's why CD prices have been in freefall over the past several years. $18 - $20 CDs were pretty common five years ago; the average price of a new CD is now sub-$14.

Re:Asshats

[tinkerghost]

There is nothing dubious about it. The RIAA has agreements with most other countries - Spain, Italy, etc... They do not have one with ROMS because they didn't like the Russian version of compulsory licensing. Russian compulsory licensing says that any company wanting to be paid royalties has to sign up with ROMS, since the RIAA won't sign up with them, it's their loss and their fault, not that of AllOfMP3. You don't get to sit outside the system and scream cheat, when you're the one not playing by the rules.

Re:Asshats

[runderwo]

No matter how you cut it, these goods and services have a value set by the vendor

No! The price is set by the vendor. The value is set by the market. The vendor assuming that they can set the value by setting the price is the problem - this is artificial scarcity. People see that the price set by the RIAA cartel does not match the value and seek an alternate supply.

Re:Asshats

[shark72]

"People are paying for AllOfMP3.com right now (when they could get it for free on P2P), a similarly priced legit store would make a fortune for the RIAA."

I don't follow. Mechanicals alone are around $0.07 a track by law, and I think that the artist should get at least something. Even if the record label didn't pay the performers at all (perhaps using the common rationale that musicians should be doing it for the love of the art, and not financial reward), it's hard to make money selling tracks at $0.10 when your mechanicals might be more than that. When you sell for less than the cost of production, you can't make that back on volume.

It's clear that as a group, Slashdotters profess a greater knowledge of the supply/demand curve, production costs, and other grim realities of the recording industry, than the record industry itself. This raises the question: why don't you -- or anybody else reading this -- do just that? Start your own online record store, sign artists, pay for production and marketing, and sell albums for a buck each or ten cents a track, just like allofmp3. You said that the existing record companies would make a fortune doing that. Why not make that fortune yourself? The solution is quite clear as day to you -- I think you just need to take the initiative to make it happen.

On a related note, do you have any insight into why Magnatunes isn't more popular? They sell albums for as low as $5, which is almost a third of what they cost in stores. They pay their artists half of the sale price... do you think that's their mistake? Do you think they should go the allofmp3 route and pay artists nothing, then sell albums for $2.50 each? Do you think that Magnatunes are simply being greedy? Could they sell those albums for $1.00 each if they really wanted to?

Re:Asshats

[b0s0z0ku]

It is as simple as selling mariguana in the Netherlands. It is legal and moral to do it there, and in contrast it is illegal and immoral to sell it on the USA. It is legal to publish DIY methods for mariguana production while in other countries might not be the case.

Actually, marijuana is technically *illegal* in the Netherlands. The law is just not enforced anymore. In neither of those places is it immoral to sell 420 as long as you're doing so to consenting adults and selling a pure product (not adulterated with PCP for example).

-b.

Re:Asshats

[shmlco]

Of course they refused to take it, as "it" was about 1/100th the amount a legitimate contract would have produced. It would be like a Chineese company knocking off Gucci handbags, and then offering Gucci ten cents a bag so they'll feel better about being ripped off.

And AllOfMP3 had nothing to lose by making the offer. If accepted, it would have "legitimized" the arrangement. And if rebuffed, as they knew it had to be, they get to keep the money AND still announce that they'd made the offer, with all of the PR value it entailed.

And as such it worked, because it's obvious that "some people" bought into their PR...

Re:Asshats

[vertinox]

Because they refused to take it.

I actually work with a few indie bands on my label. We noticed that Lavamus.com (another Russian website) had put our MP3s up for sale. Frankly we usually don't care about piracy and our stuff is all over Pirate Bay (and we think it is flattering), but when people sell our stuff for money, it is kind of lame.

We sent them letters letting them know we don't mind that they sell as long as they give us something , they kept responding that they were protected by ROMs and there would be no compensation forthcoming. We are the furthest thing you will see from RIAA, but in general these people aren't given any money to any artist even if the artist is ok with them selling their music at those prices.

And we aren't on Allofmp3.com, but Lavamus is pretty much the same thing.

If they asked in the first place I don't think we would mind.

Re:Asshats

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it's simply because of Wal-Mart.

Re:Asshats

[Maxo-Texas]

It's not just CD's.

Say I have $40 dollars.

I have to choose between 20+ very good boardgames, 12+ new very entertaining TV series (22 hours for $14.99), 18+ new somewhat to very entertaining movies, 6+ engrossing books, playing sports, getting massages, and relistening or rewatching something from my now huge collection (400+ dvd's, 30 to 40 seasons of TV shows) and using the money to upgrade from a burger to a steak or perhaps a fine wine.

Now add to that the lack of good music (I recently added "Blue October" - first encountered via a non-commercial copy of their music btw. I would have never bought them "cold" but now I like their music a lot- they are very good!). At one point, you listened to the radio to get exposure to new music. Now you get recommendations from friends, boards, or you look for popular torrents because the radio is all crap/same songs now.

Anyway, so you have $40- the question is what are you going to spend it on? Today you have MANY options. If they want to get a share of your $40, they better lower their prices. Because $22 for a 2 hour CD is not going to fly compared to a new boardgame, a season of TV, and a movie for the same price.

Re:Asshats

[estarriol]

It's clear that as a group, Slashdotters profess a greater knowledge of the supply/demand curve, production costs, and other grim realities of the recording industry, than the record industry itself. This raises the question: why don't you -- or anybody else reading this -- do just that? Start your own online record store, sign artists, pay for production and marketing, and sell albums for a buck each or ten cents a track, just like allofmp3. You said that the existing record companies would make a fortune doing that. Why not make that fortune yourself?

The bottom line, in layman's terms, is that it's not easy to break into any established market as an "average Joe", even if Joe is a smart, well-educated and creative individual, or set of individuals. If it were, we wouldn't see commerce in the world largely being driven by global corporations, and corner shop greengrocers would be effectively competing with the Wal-Marts of the world. There's plenty of smarts in the world, but capitalism rewards having lots of money and existing corporate structures far more than "smarts".

On a related note, do you have any insight into why Magnatunes isn't more popular? They sell albums for as low as $5, which is almost a third of what they cost in stores.

Easy - they're almost unknown to the general public. I certainly hadn't heard of them before you mentioned them.

Just to make it even more difficult for them - those in the know enough to know about Magnatunes also probably know about AllOfMp3... having a direct competitor at a quarter of the price (with a really usable service, too) hurts badly.

They pay their artists half of the sale price... do you think that's their mistake? Do you think they should go the allofmp3 route and pay artists nothing, then sell albums for $2.50 each?

AllOfMp3 pay royalties that, under Russian copyright law and the regulations of the non-profit organisations that regulate them (FAIR and ROMS), can be claimed by any relevant copyright owner. The royalties are 15% (see the AllOfMp3 legality FAQ, which is an interesting read). We could debate whether 15% is reasonable (even AllOfMp3 admit they are considering paying another 5% directly to the artist), but it's not really fair to say that they pay the artists nothing.

Re:Asshats

[mrchaotica]

The vendors did not feel that they were getting anything from the sale of their goods, so they applied pressure any way they could to get what they felt they were due. Thats the market; if you don't like it, don't buy it.

No, it was not "the market!" It was politics -- the RIAA used the US Government's threat of force to get its desired outcome.

Re:Asshats

[AK Marc]

Of course they refused to take it, as "it" was about 1/100th the amount a legitimate contract would have produced. It would be like a Chineese company knocking off Gucci handbags, and then offering Gucci ten cents a bag so they'll feel better about being ripped off.

No, it would be like me covering one of their songs for profit. There is compulsory licensing for covers. I can send a tiny check to some PO Box somewhere in the US and I have then paid for the right to cover the song. Now, if I send them $10 and make $1,000,000 off the performance, is that fair? Well, guess what, whether it is fair is irrelevant to whether it is legal. Russia has compulsory licensing on distribution in the same way the US has compulsory licensing for covers. That the RIAA doesn't like it doesn't make it illegal. The law *can't* be illegal. It's the law.

Re:Asshats

[Durf]

Why would the RIAA, a cartel, lower prices?

Because Putin threatened to take them out for polonium and sushi?

Arcade game

[Toby The Economist]

There's an arcade game, where you have a dozen jack-in-the-box little heads which pop up, and a hammer, and your goal is to hit as many heads as you can as quickly as you can, as they pop up again a little while after you've hit them down.

Unrelated

[SuperKendall]

In completely unrelated news, the entire body of the WTO has gone home early today feeling ill and glowing slightly after being served tea by a thickly bearded new manservant.

The real PlaysForSure

[linuxci]

Although I've never used it I would have to say this site was the real Plays for Sure of the music world. It's a shame the record companies did not embrace this model as a lot of people would be willing to pay iTunes prices for DRM-free audio in a choice of formats. Instead the only site that offered consumers choice is being closed down which would be fair enough if a viable legal alternative would spring up, but until the RIAA start embracing technology that won't happen.

Re:The real PlaysForSure

[Dhalka226]

As I understood it, the artists never earned a penny from sales through this site, so it might be great for the consumers, but why on earth would you expect the music industry to embrace this?

Well if that is true, that's a shame. But he doesn't expect the RIAA to embrace the website; he expects them to embrace what the website offered: Choice of formats without DRM restrictions. Allofmp3, even at 320kbps MP3, was only like 20-30 cents per song and the grandparent rightly supposes that people would pay more for those same choices, even the $0.99 an iTunes track costs. I can vouch for this myself. I do not purchase from iTunes because of the DRM issues (the lack of choice too, but to a lesser extent) but would be happy to pay $0.99 for that 320 kbps MP3 if that is what I want a particular song in.

I doubt Allofmp3 was a charity operation, so they were making money even with the low prices. That means that if the RIAA were to set up an identical system, and increase the prices such that the highest bitrate MP3* was $0.99, they would have roughly 60 cents per download of guaranteed profit on top of whatever the production/distribution costs of the files are that they can split amongst the artists. Does the artist get 60% right now? Heck, even if the RIAA pocketed half I think the artists would still end up making more under this scheme than they do for the current incarnation of iTunes.

I think cinema tickets are too expensive, so I dont go, but you can bet that the number of people who *do* go outweigh the small loses by losing me as a customer.

That is a different issue. Cinema tickets are a limited resource. Once all the tickets for a show are sold out, they can't sell more. In that sense, losing you as a customer only matters if demand is less than the number of seats available. Otherwise, they simply won't even notice you did not come. If supply is great, they either need to add more show dates (which is not always feasible) or expand the theater size and hope that the next show that comes through has similar demand. If not, they're losing money.

Online music distribution is different. The costs to distribute another copy of a given song are miniscule, nearly negligible. The fact that you only produce that extra cost when somebody purchases the song means you ALWAYS make a profit on expansion. It would be like if every time somebody new wanted a ticket to that cinema show, a new seat--equally as good as every other seat in the place--would spring magically into existence. In this case, if you refused to buy a song because of the cost it would be a direct impact to them. Even if there are five buyers for every non-buyer, they'll still feel it because it's essentially free money to them. They had five sales where they could have had six, instead of having a sell-out where they could have had... a sell-out.

Allofmp3 obviously made this system work at less than $0.99 a song, so it's doable. The only explanation I can think of as to why the RIAA doesn't give it a shot is because they're control freaks who are desperately trying to prove to the world that they were somehow still needed when they really are not.

I'm sure piracy is a problem for them, although I'm also sure it's not nearly as big a problem monetarily as they would have us believe. The don't seem to realize that they can eliminate a large segment of that piracy by offering low-cost products. Pirating a $17 CD might be worth it. Pirating a $0.99 song becomes significantly less so. If I care enough about the song that I would want it at a high bitrate, such as this hypothetical new RIAA service would offer me, it would be even harder to find and less worth pirating.

But meh. Logic doesn't seem to be high atop the RIAA's list of traits.

* I keep mentioning 320kbps MP3 because that's what I got when I wanted a high-quality version. I could do OGG I suppose, but I don't; and honestly, I could personally hear no difference between the 320 MP3 and the FLAC when I compared once.

Re:The real PlaysForSure

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess the best alternative for now is probably emusic.com. Their catalog is a bit smaller (about 1,000,000 songs), but I find it has good quality music and a lot less junk than allofmp3. Of course they don't offer the same choice of formats (nothing free as in OGG), but at least they use LAME/APS encoded mp3's which are of course DRM-free. And they don't transcode mp3's like allofmp3 was reported to have done. No DRM means no big artists like Britney Spears, but I could care less when you've got Sonic Youth, Yo La Tengo, Cat Power, Johnny Cash, and the likes.

Their base plan (in Europe, at least) works out to 0.23 cents per song, and the more you buy, the cheaper it gets. I've signed up for a free trial a few times now, and every time I cancel they come back a few months later inviting me for another free trial. It's not our good 'ole friend allofmp3, but it beats iTunes hands down. So, there's at least one legal site which is getting closer to something worth using...

So much for the new enlightened Russia...

[Anonymous Coward]

Where else would you be able to make a deal with the government to shut down a private company that follows local laws? Of course it's not bribery if all you are giving in exchange is favorable trading regulations and a chance at WTO membership.

Re:So much for the new enlightened Russia...

[idonthack]

Where else would you be able to make a deal with the government to shut down a private company that follows local laws?

Sweden.
 
And of course America, if there's enough cash involved.

Damn that WTO

[Cyberax]

Well, AoMP3 was nice while it lasted. But mostly I care about http://www.lib.ru/ - it's the best Internet library in Russia.

But we still have a hope, there's a Russian proverb: "Drastic Russian laws are softened by their loose observance". So I hope that lib.ru will continue to work 'underground'.

Re:Damn that WTO

[Vadim Makarov]

Whether lib.ru will continue to operate or not, ultimately does not matter. Once a book is OCRed and put online, it is impossible to eradicate. If publishers sue, resources will just go a bit deeper where prosecution is harder to do (just like it has happened with p2p music). For example, there is an IRC cnannel for English language literature far richer than any open web library.

Anyway, I think lib.ru is to remain. It is well accepted by the whole Russian-speaking internet community, and it is a non-commercial resource. Also it has a lot of stuff published with an explicit permission. It won't be gone.

Go go world police

[pembo13]

The US of A, fighting back actions they do not like around the world.

On a sadder note for russian citizens

[sylvainsf]

TFA also mentions that pharmaceutical companies can't apply to sell generics of a drug in Russia without doing all their own clinical trials and submitting that documentation. I'm guessing that previously they could just use common sense and say IT'S THE SAME MOLECULE.

Re:On a sadder note for russian citizens

[Dr_Barnowl]

Whoever modded this offtopic, shame on you. I've seen diversions in topic thread far more meandering and less relevant over the past few days.

It's an interesting opportunity to discuss the differences and similarities of the Pharmaceutical / Music business models.

Both of them provide

  * something of perceived high value
  * something where the bulk of cost in in the R&D phase
  * something with a low per-unit production cost
  * something where if the product is copied, it can be just as good as the original

Arguably, both also

  * Advertise products excessively heavily given their actual value
  * Exploit the producers of their intellectual property

The major difference is that the music industry has a consumer base where a significant fraction can copy the product themselves, whereas the pharamceutical industry only has to worry about industrial competitors in markets where their pricing levels cannot be supported.

The agreement that Russia has entered is ostensibly about clincal trial data, but given that clinical trials represent the most time consuming and costly part of the development of any drug, it is essentially about prohibiting the marketing of that drug product by a competitor. This protection appears to be distinct and seperate from the protection that may (or may not) be afforded by patents, and is liable to be imposed upon other countries seeking WTO agreements. It is in effect, using the regulatory framework of the country against them.

It could of course, be trivially circumvented by any country willing to make their certification process as simple as "the FDA approves of it, thus so shall we all".

Western civ, we hardly knew ye...

[pla]

Russia has agreed to close down AllofMP3.com, and any sites that 'permit illegal distribution of music and other copyright works.'

One of the most significant contributions to human rights in all of human history came from Hammurabi - The concept of a written code of laws, which everyone could know and which applied equally to all people, thus making "justice" less subject to the biases of the king / emperor / caliph / whatever. He may not have quite lived up to that ideal, but as a basis for all modern reasonably-fair legal systems, it forms a cornerstone on which we've built everything since.

AllOfMP3, whether the RIAA like it or not, operated within Russian law (or at least, they did so until this past September). Whether or not the new law closes the "loophole" (if you can call strong fair-use rights and lax copyright enforcement by-design a "loophole") will have to wait for the Russian authorities to make a case against someone.

Either way, to announce the closing of AllOfMP3 as practically the basis of an international trade agreement strikes me as the most capricious undermining of the concept of modern jurisprudence imagineable. This announcement effectively says "The rule of law does not apply to the king's friends, and its protections do not extend to the king's friends' enemies".

Buildings do not remain standing very long if you undermine their foundations. This should chill us all for a much, MUCH deeper reason than merely the loss of a way to get cheap music. I personally never even used AllOfMP3, and this scares the hell out of me. Imagine the same precedent applied, 20 years or so from now, to the US trying to get some economic favor from China...

How about court decision?

[SolitaryMan]

agreement between the U.S. and Russia in which Russia has agreed to close down AllofMP3.com [CC]

Excuse me, but when such decisions became governments' jurisdiction? Doesn't this require some investigation and then court decision? We are not even trying to _play_ democracy anymore, are we?

Re:How about court decision?

[SkoZombie]

Governments are no longer about the will of the people, but the will of the corporations.

Re:How about court decision?

[GauteL]

Putin's Russia is hardly a democracy and anyone paying attention would have known this for quite some time.

If you think THIS is bad, you ought to read up on all the seemingly government ordered assasinations of people opposed to Putin recently. There has been a series of high profile murders. The lesson being that "thou shalt not oppose Putin".

Democracy

[Sub Zero 992]

I was going to write a post critizing the Russian government's ability to mug, steal, kill and rob at will.

But really, Russia is no worse than the USA, thanks to global hegemony induced TRIPS.

The Government of RIAA strikes again...

[Soloact]

,... also, what's with these "agencies" of the RIAA and MPAA? They don't want to allow fair-use copying of digital media, yet, when a movie comes out on DVD, or an advertised CD is released, all of the commercials say, "Own it today". This should be considered false advertising, because one doesn't actually "own" the movie or music one buys, despite the commercials. I continue to be disgusted by their tactics.

Re:The Government of RIAA strikes again...

[slaida1]

And, how can you go anywhere in a city without being bombarded with new hit music constantly and with replays? Forced advertising?

If you hear something good, you likely want to hear it again, don't you? How could one prevent himself from hearing music ads without crippling his ability to interact with rest of the world severely with earmuffs.

Music is so essential part of our being that it's screaming travesty to let only people who do it for money to cover magazines and show on tv and play in radio. They have nothing new to say, they don't make art, they make money. Music awards aren't about music, they are about good looking idols patting each others' backs.

Is it surprise that people strange to each other often inquire others' favorite music? Shouldn't the fact that so many big gatherings have music give a hint that music is not just any commodity and it can't be advertized, sold, pushed like soap or cars? Music is special because it's a from of communication, it's a common language and music industry has muddied the waters with constant push of meaningless garbage that doesn't communicate.

Look some parts of world where music still is everyones' right and language to make new friends and tell stories. Not this sick convoluted money grabbing scheme where music is no longer born, it's produced. /morpheus:off

In Soviet Russia...

[suparjerk]

... song pirates you!

Just like Aljazeera

[WindBourne]

What amazes me is that allofmp3 is being shutdown due to selling to Americans. It is not that they are selling "illegal" or cheap music.

This is akin to American Gov's interest in Aljazeera. Roughly, they come down hard on it whenever they put Al Qaeda info on the English side. Interestingly, they do not mind if the info is on the main arabic site. I have seen what appears to be OBL tapes on the Arabic site, but once it is translated into English, then it gets stopped.

New name?

[xenobyte]

If the allegations about not paying for the music are correct, the people behind AllOfMP3 must have made a profit beyond belief. Sure some fund have gone to pay for servers, hosting and staff, plus some bribes I'm sure, but there must still be an enormous profit that must have made the owners incredibly rich. And if you are rich in Russia (and not on the Polonium 210 recipient waiting list) you can get away with everything, including simply moving the entire business elsewhere. So it must be just a matter of finding out what the new name will be and start shopping again.

The real troublesome issue here is that we again have seen the US bullying another nation into line, closely aided by (MP/RI)AA. We saw it with the highly illegal raid on The Pirate Bay in Sweden which was the result of government level pressure and thus a conflict between the separated powers (trias politica). We see the same here because there has been no trial against AllOfMP3 and thus their legality has not been questioned the proper way. That is the real thing that must be stopped.

Possible effects

[Vadim Makarov]

I'm in Russia, and I am an avid and price-sensitive media consumer. So let me make a prognosis.

1. Allofmp3.com will be closed, law or not, if the top of the government, i.e. Putin personally, orders it. Our government regularly follows such orders regardless of the law (by the way I'm not happy at all with it). The question is if Putin finds it fitting to "bow to the demands" of a foreign state, which I hope he will not, for the national pride reasons.

2. A slower solution that would satisfy the U.S. in the internet trade would be changing our Law on Copyright and Neighboring Rights. Here it depends on the Duma, which I think will not act on this without a request from the executive branch (see above). (Even given such a request, Duma may decide to refuse to bow to external demands, or simply not see it a high priority in their lawmaking.)

3. "Keeping raids at the same level" is not going to stop domestic sale of unlicensed disks. I often hear staff of media outlets complaining about raids and mass confiscations of their stock, but all that it has achieved by now is intermittent supply of some quality DVD copies (like DVD-9 of obscure titles), and somewhat higher prices (at most +50%).

Oh, well

[Petrushka]

Oh, well. Back to P2P I guess. Shame. It was nice being legal.

Re:Oh, well

[Uninvited Guest]

Allofmp3.com works under rules similar to radio stations in the USA. Every time you purchase music at Allofmp3, they encode it on the fly each time, effectively broadcasting it to you over the Internet. Instead of paying per copy royalties to something like the RIAA, Allofmp3.com pays performance royalties to something like ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC. The IFPI (the international equivalent of the USA's RIAA) is also considered with actual copies (not broadcasting or performances), and it finds the way allofmp3.com works unacceptable. Whether allofmp3 is making copies or broadcasting performances is a legal distinction that's not well established in Russia.

AoMP3 *did* pay

[DrYak]

As I understood it, the artists never earned a penny from sales through this site

AllofMP3.com did pay money to the local state copyright licensing organisation, as required by Russian law.
(Per Russian law, if you want to broadcast music, all you have to do is to pay that organisation. Which will, in turn take care of sending the money were it's due).
The problem is not at the level of AllofMp3.com. The problem is in the next step : that organisation then in turn paid the money only to local band and other cultural events.
That's because, as other /. pointed in this thread, the western artists aren't registered at the Russian copyright organisation. Neither are there arrangement between the Russian organisation and foreign counterparts.

By shutting down the AllOfMP3.com site, the USA doesn't solve the root problem. They only hide one of the most visible manifestation of the phenomenon.
Nothing technically forbids another company to set up a similar service elsewere (say, a website that sells audio albums in FLAC DRM-less format, and uses international bank-2-bank money transfers as payment). As long as they follow Russian law and pay the money they're supposed to pay to the local copyright company, they won't be illegal.

The real solution would be to find an arrangement between western artists and Russia. But that's highly unlikely, mostly because those artist have signed exclusive rights with the western companies. There for the only possible arrangement is between Russian an western companies. And that's something Russia doesn't want because probably the **AA, IFPI, etc. are going to ask for way too much money and nothing will be left for local projects. That's something Russia want to avoid. Therefor the current solution is what they find best as a way to earn an entry to the WTO.

Be sure to see more AllOfMP3.com clones to appear and go unharmed once the Russia has secured its place within the WTO.

(The Wikipedia article has more detailed informations about the problem)

Nothing unusual is happening here.

[Narcogen]

AllOfMP3, whether the RIAA like it or not, operated within Russian law (or at least, they did so until this past September). Whether or not the new law closes the "loophole" (if you can call strong fair-use rights and lax copyright enforcement by-design a "loophole") will have to wait for the Russian authorities to make a case against someone.

People can repeat that site's FUD ad infinitum if they like, but it cannot make falsehood into the truth.

AllofMP3's rights derived from a Soviet government asserted right to any and all intellectual property being broadcast within the Soviet Union. That the Soviet government had no such rights to distribute intellectual properties from the holders of those properties was irrelevant to the Soviet government. The only intellectual property rights they were interested in were those of the state's. Anything the state produced or condoned was fine, and rights to those were distributed (if needed) by the state. Intellectual property that was not condoned was forbidden, and rights to those were irrelevant.

Any western films and music that were not officially allowed were prohibited, and any copies of them that might exist were contraband.

With the opening of Russia to the West and the collapse of the Soviet Union, western media were not so tightly controlled. However, the state still had agencies within it granted sweeping rights to control intellectual property anywhere within the Russian Federation, regardless of the fact that the government was no longer the sole source of all those rights.

When you watch a movie, the warning says that the intellectual property is protected by local laws and international agreements. The only way that companies who deal in intellectual property are willing to set up shop overseas and officially distribute their wares is if they know there are not just local laws, but international agreements in place so their rights can be protected.

Allofmp3 can have whatever rights it wants given to them by the Russian government, but the fact of the matter is, the Russian government did not have the authority to give the site those rights because it didn't have them. You can't just pass a law that says that any intellectual property that happens to come within your borders (no matter how it got there) is fair game to be bought, sold, and copied by anyone who likes without any compensation to the owners of the rights to those properties.

Or, rather, you can, but as Russia has finally come to grips with, you cannot have a situation like this and enter into trade organizations like WTO.

Either way, to announce the closing of AllOfMP3 as practically the basis of an international trade agreement strikes me as the most capricious undermining of the concept of modern jurisprudence imagineable. This announcement effectively says "The rule of law does not apply to the king's friends, and its protections do not extend to the king's friends' enemies".

You have grossly misunderstood the situation.

The only concept that is being underscored here is the universal concept that international agreements supersede local laws. If the duly designated representative or representatives of a government of a country have entered into international agreements that state that the producers of intellectual properties from outside that country's borders will be respected within that country's borders, then other elements of that government, such as the legislature, cannot supersede that arrangement.

Rights granted to AllofMP3 were null an void because the government agency granting them did not have the authority to; and now, Russia has signed an international agreement that does nothing more than recognize that fact.

Buildings do not remain standing very long if you undermine their foundations. This should chill us all for a much, MUCH deeper reason than merely the loss of a way to get cheap music. I personally never even used AllOfMP3, and this scares the hell out of me. Imagine the same pr

Re:Nothing unusual is happening here.

[Dunbal]

You can't just pass a law that says that any intellectual property that happens to come within your borders (no matter how it got there) is fair game to be bought, sold, and copied by anyone who likes without any compensation to the owners of the rights to those properties.

      Yes you can. It's called sovereignty. If you don't like it your options are a) destroy that country's government by beating their army with your army or b) convince that government through incentives and international agreements to modify or eliminate that law.

Re:Nothing unusual is happening here.

[tinkerghost]

Allofmp3 can have whatever rights it wants given to them by the Russian government, but the fact of the matter is, the Russian government did not have the authority to give the site those rights because it didn't have them. You can't just pass a law that says that any intellectual property that happens to come within your borders (no matter how it got there) is fair game to be bought, sold, and copied by anyone who likes without any compensation to the owners of the rights to those properties.

Actually the WTO has provisions for doing exactly that. Talk to Antigua, they are contemplating petitioning the WTO for exactly that right in retaliation for the US banning of international online gambling.
The thing you forget is that by default all ideas, inventions, and performances belong to the public domain and will eventually be there. All forms of IP are artificial constructs which are supposed to be contracts between the creator and society - as represented by the government - to encourage the growth of that body of public domain works. There is no natural right to own an idea. It is perfectly acceptable for different countries, and therefor societies, to determine that someone else's contract is not suitable for their society.
Moreover, your argument doesn't reflect the facts. Russian law says that the artists must be compensated - at a rate set by the Russian Govt - and that the way to receive your share of the compensation is to go through ROMS. It's no different than the way the US handles compulsory licensing for public performances - there are 2 or 3 agencies that collect funds & disperse them to their members based on performance records and at a rate determined by the Library of Congress. If you do not belong to one of these agencies, you don't get paid. Because no physical media changes hands, the Russian law determines any digital audio transfer over the internet to be a performance. US law determines only streamed audio to be a performance. Given the proliferation of programs which convert streams to MP3's I think the Russian approach is much more practical and reflective of the reality of the situation.

Re:Nothing unusual is happening here.

[emil10001]

That's all well and good that Russia had bad intellectual property laws, and licensing practices, and they would like to fix those practices and laws in order to enter the WTO. The problem here is that they are, instead of trying to work with allofmp3.com, trying to shut it down. Allofmp3.com was doing what it needed to do by getting licensing from ROMS, and since in Russia, that is the entity that gives the licensing, why is the problem with allofmp3.com and not with ROMS? When ROMS changes how it does business, and plays nice with the international recording organization, shouldn't allofmp3.com be given the fair and proper chance to obtain a new license?

If you are following the laws of the country, and the international bodies deem your country's laws to be bad, shouldn't you have the opportunity to change your behaviors to be in compliance with the law? or should you simply be tossed in jail?

RIAA Strikes Again

[RAMMS EIN]

Well, I guess this demonstrates that you're at risk of being strongarmed not just if you obtain RIAA music, but also when you sell it. And, as we all know, it doesn't matter if you're doing it legally or illegally. All in name of the artists, even if they get just a tiny share of what the cartel charges for the music.

I've had enough.

We don't need the copyright cartel to handle distribution and go after the pirates anymore. We definitely don't need them to set the prices, pocket most of the revenue, and randomly sue anyone who comes into contact with the music.

So let's see a list of sites that distribute (for pay or for free) music outside of the cartel, directly on behalf of the artists. I'll only do business with sites that offer Ogg Vorbis files and that let me listen to the music before deciding if I want to buy it.

I'll start:

Music is Here!
Independent Music Online
On Classical

Oh please

[Moraelin]

One of the most significant contributions to human rights in all of human history came from Hammurabi - The concept of a written code of laws, which everyone could know and which applied equally to all people, thus making "justice" less subject to the biases of the king / emperor / caliph / whatever. He may not have quite lived up to that ideal, but as a basis for all modern reasonably-fair legal systems, it forms a cornerstone on which we've built everything since.

AllOfMP3, whether the RIAA like it or not, operated within Russian law (or at least, they did so until this past September).

Bingo. So as of September, a Russian law _does_ exist, under which offering such downloads is illegal. And it applies to everyone, not only to AllOfMP3.

It's not even new. According to the very article you've linked to: " Luckily Russia passed just such a law a couple years ago... though it didn't go into effect until just last week." I took the liberty of highlighting a crucial point there. It's not some law passed over-night right now, but something that had been voted years ago.

So a law does exist, and it does apply to everyone. Exactly like in all modern legal systems. And there were a couple of years given to everyone to clean up their act, before it goes in effect. Which is actually a lot more than most other modern legal systems give you.

At best all that the new aggreement with the USA says is, "yep, we're actually going to enforce that law." Which, again, is perfectly normal in any modern legal system. And it seems to be what you ask for anyway: a law should apply to everyone equally, even if they're the emperor's friends or favourite purveyors of stolen goods. So, yes, it should equally apply to AllOfMP3 too.

So basically please spare me the bullshit. If you have something against copyright, fine by me. But you can find better stuff to support it with than bogus "oh, there goes western civilization and rule of the law" arguments.

Move it to Sudan

[rev_karol]

And Palestine and anywhere else that needs the money bady. Screw the legality. I want cheap music. They need the money.

Our rights to get robbed?

[Ilgaz]

Did allofmp3 pay a cent to artists getting downloaded? No RIAA , no DRM argument please. Lets say I downloaded David Gilmour album, did Mr. Gilmour get a cent?

So, our right to get robbed with a fake legit site and artists not getting anything at all is broken. Very sad!

Only thing allofmp3 has proven is: International users exist besides ~18 countries and they somehow pay for music they get. Yes, I am referencing iTunes store and "you can't buy anything at all, you are a thief!" attitude shown by Apple/RIAA/MPAA for years.

If you really hate RIAA and you love to pay for your music, http://www.magnatunes.com/ , 50% 50% share, quality music, FLAC, Creative Commons, no DRM.

That is what I do besides paying to Real Networks for "radiopass" broadband radio. Paying to a shadowy Russian site knowing the artists not getting anything just to have fake legal music isn't a right of me so I didn't lose anything.

Re:Our rights to get robbed?

[Aladrin]

What do you mean, 'no RIAA argument please'? The RIAA is the one making sure allofmp3 COULDN'T pay the artists. Allofmp3 DID pay the Russian agency in charge of compensating the artists. And that agency DID try to pay them.

Don't blame Allofmp3 for the RIAA's bullshit.

Re:Our rights to get robbed?

[alexgieg]

This is incorrect. The site was paying the Russian government, in complete accordance with the Russian law. If the Russian government wasn't forwarding the money to the copyright holders, this is something you should blame on that government, not on the service that was following the law strictly.

I've often wondered....

[demallien2]

what would happen if someone set up a site, a bit like The Pirate Bay, or AllOfMP3, but with the big difference that they took the trouble to track down the artists who's work they sold, and gave them half the profits. What would the artists do? Reject the money? Ditch their RIAA contract?

Re:I've often wondered....

[clickclickdrone]

It sounds great in theory but in practice, the artists do not own the music they created, the labels do. Launching a web site that sold music then gave the money to the artist is on a one way trip to legal hell.

Prove it:

[tinkerghost]

New Line is telling Jackson that LOTR is still in the red - despite giving bonuses to it's board for huge profits.
It's a known fact that the numbers in recording companies books are magical. They are sued and loose every year for underreporting profits for individual artists. They just keep doing it because they get away with it often enough to make it profitable.
For one example from the video industry:

Kohn says in his lawsuit that he engaged an auditor who was barred from seeing numerous MGM documents but did find "material shortfalls, overcharges, discrepancies [and] irregularities" in his film's DVD accounting. In one instance, he says, MGM deducted $7,312.68 for "Basket" returns from a bankrupt video chain that appeared to have ordered no DVDs.

For the record, that's over 1% of the gross from the theatrical release of the movie.
If you want cooking the books, look no farther than the 15% "breakage" that record companies deduct from the digital sales through iTunes.

Re:Goodbye allofmp3.com

[tehcyder]

... allofmp3.va

That last one would be great, I doubt even the US would have the balls to go after that government.

Yes, I'm sure the Pope would have no qualms about hosting a legally dubious music website.

Re:If you want the benefits of being in the WTO

[Khazunga]

one's "own laws" should reflect international norms and basic fairness. That's half the point of the WTO. Russia had a loophole in its law that allowed piracy. They have shut it down. Good ridance.

I'm continuously amazed how close-minded Americans are. "US norms and basic fairness" do not automatically translate to the rest of the world. At least in Europe it is common for (naturally) monopolistic markets (e.g. Electrical distribution) to be regulated, with fixed prices. That's what Russia had for music, and that's what the US forced them to abandon.

Now, take a step back and look. In the US, an album costs 15USD, where 50cents to a dollar is for the musician. In Russia, the copyright licensing price is fixed, with an electronic album costing 2USD with 50cents to a dollar for the musician. Which system is more efficient?

Some more comments about similar practices

[zuki]

(As a disclaimer, I will write that I have an interest in a small independent non-RIAA-affiliated record label, in existence for over 10 years, and that we pay royalties to our artists for the sales of their recordings which are a part of our catalog. Most of our music is currently available for purchase DRM-free from a variety of online sites in all formats, ranging from full-resolution .wav to low-bit rate MP3, and even AAC via iTunes Music Store.

What would it feel like to you if one day you got notice that this overseas online store decided to start selling your whole entire catalog to customers worldwide without any permission or consent whatsoever, made from dubious (and inferior) pirated sound sources, or at best ripped from CDs if those were even commercially available, as many of AllOfMP3's customers have come to realize once they start downloading the product? This is basically what was happening, as far as I gather these people already had another earlier site which got shut down, all they did is try and exploit loopholes in Russian and international law, and leverage this to hopefully legitimize their business model by sheer brute force.

There are several disturbing points which are not really made clearly by anyone yet, the first being that the type of income which is usually payed to ROMS (as someone already pointed out) is customarily made for the same types of payments that radio or TV stations make to the song's publishers when there is airplay, in other words some form of compulsory license which translates to a very low income figure usually set by that country's laws addressing public broadcast; this amount usually strictly only covers the publishing rights to a song. While this does (in theory) compensates the songwriters and publishers, it pays nothing whatsoever to the actual owners of the sound recording, who are not necessarily the same entities.

In most every country, radio and TV play does not usually compensate the owners of the sound recording either, but any sale to the public stipulates that the amount payable to the owner should be negotiated in good faith between the recording's owner and the selling entity. As far as I know, there is no country in the world where someone can walk off the street and decide to start selling your music legally for whatever price they feel, just because they have unilaterally decided to grant themselves that right.

The other part of this bit of 'truthiness' is that even if - so far - AllOfMP3 was able to skirt commonly accepted international trade practices by exploiting the murky Russian legal loopholes in question, there is no question that a number of keys point should have been respected on their part in order for them to maintain the type of legitimacy their recent PR-stunt 'email press conference' hinted they were trying to gain:

• Although they were so far able to evade these issues due to the fact that Russian copyright law was antiquated and did not cover online sales, the sales in questions should have strictly been limited to Russian customers, not to the entire planet.... Come on, now! Many of the cutting-edge music sites like Beatport are finding that in order to get the right to sell music, they must respect territoriality, such as not selling a particular song in a certain country, as someone else already has those exclusive rights.

• If they were in fact a pseudo-legitimate organization that was just far ahead of the times in terms of forward-thinking copyright reform, then they should have made a point of keeping in escrow a sizeable portion of their earnings, to be held in good faith until such time that an agreement would be made with the sound recordings' owners, or at least an organization representing their collective rights in Russia for the music that was already sold to this date. Not publishing.... sound recording rights.

I well realize that similar things took places during the Gold Rush and at the time The West was

Re:obvious!

[TheRaven64]

It depends on what you listen to. Last year, I bought a boxed set of 40 classical CDs for £25. A few were duplicates of things I owned and a few were less good recordings. The majority, however, were good recordings of things I didn't own, or better recordings than the ones I had (Carmina Burana, for example). At a (very) conservative estimate, I got 30 good CDs for £25; the real number is probably closer to 35. Even assuming it was only 25, that means I paid £1 for each one. iTunes, on the other hand, charges about £8.99 for each album (or more), includes DRM, and doesn't give a physical medium as a backup.

AllOfMP3.com has shown that you can distribute digital music at a reasonable price and make enough money to cover operating costs. Low cost CDs have shown you can distribute music at a reasonable price and make enough money to cover the cost of paying the musicians (and I can't believe that a 4-person band should cost more than a full orchestra). This seems like enough evidence to show the average consumer that they are being ripped off if they buy a CD, which is why I rarely do anymore (that, and I already have a reasonable sized music collection, so I don't feel compelled to add to it).

Not a charity - easy to do

[SuperKendall]

Yes AOMP3 was not a charity, and I'm sure they made plenty of money. It's easy to do when you pay almost NO royalties on any music you sell! Sure the MPAA didn't get anything from them but neither did the artists.

If you like giving the same people money that are basically behind the massive Zombienets you see today, then buying from AOMP3 was an awesome choice for music. Basically it was more ethical to steal it outright!

It's about power (in this case, price-fixing)

[buxton2k]

Free trade is all about lowering restrictions and barriers to the movement of goods and capital across national borders. This has worked out well for the owners of capital. In a place like China, where the average income is not much more than $1/day, you can buy cheap labor; the produced goods flow back to the First World, where you can sell at a much higher price, but lower than the cost of the good if it was produced using First World labor.

What the RIAA and similar organizations absolutely can not allow is for consumers to employ the same principles. When you buy a song from AllofMP3.com, you pay about US$0.05 - but adjusted for purchasing power parity, that works about to about a US dollar in terms of what you can buy in Russia (roughly, it's been a while since I looked this up). In other words, to a Russian, AllofMP3.com sells songs (although unencumbered by DRM) for about the same real price as an American pays for a song at iTunes.

Thanks to the Internet, there is no real (i.e. technical or physical) reason why the American can't buy a song "in Russia" at "Russian prices" - so of course the American will, for the same reason that many retirees may choose to move to a lower-price economy to live off their pensions at a higher standard of living, or companies may buy their labor in Third World nations. AllofMP3.com is simply one of many situations where ordinary people, as opposed to corporations, make direct benefit off free trade. All of these examples, you might note, are of wealthier people benefiting from access to lower price markets.

For the RIAA (and similar orgs like the MPAA), this would be the collapse of the price-fixing system they have carefully constructed. The reason that a Asian-region DVD won't play in the US is because if it did play, there would be no reason to buy higher-priced US-region DVDs. "To every market, the highest possible price that particular market can support," is the cartel mantra. AllofMP3.com was selling to a "universal market", at prices that made it a profit in local (Russian) terms, and that was the real threat to the RIAA's control> and ability to price-fix. Even if AllofMP3.com paid most of its profits to the RIAA, it would still be eroding that control and needed to be destroyed or rendered irrelevant.